Federal Tories Attempt To Muzzle Elections Canada, Influence Future Elections

[David Struch]

1. Conservatives did not consult Elections Canada

On the eve of tabling the bill, Poilievre stood up in the House of Commons on Monday to declare that the government had consulted with Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand. "I did meet with the CEO of Elections Canada some time ago and we had a terrific and a very long meeting, at which I listened carefully to all of his ideas," Poilievre declared. Not so, Mayrand's office shot back within minutes.

"The chief electoral officer has not been consulted," Elections Canada spokesman John Enright said. "There's been no consultation on the contents of the bill."

5 things you need to know about Orwellian "Fair" Elections Act

http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post/...-elections-act

[Flash Walken]

The legacy of the Harper government appears to be outright contempt for democracy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

re. Voter fraud
I am really of two minds on voter fraud. I don't like the idea of anything that has the potential of preventing someone from voting but on the other hand voter fraud seems equally offensive to me.
In the last election I forget the Ontario riding that was challenged but there were hundreds of declarations and a large number of them were missing information. The form is supposed to be filled out with the info of the voter and then signed by the voter and the polling officer to verify that he has seen sufficient proof. In the Ontario riding many of the forms weren't signed by either party. They just had some chicken scratch on them and then they were given a ballot.
The other issue with no identification is the bus load scam. It is rumoured to happen in some elections where a bus load of people show up at a polling station and all head inside with no id and make the declaration to get a ballot. Afterwards they pile back on the bus and head to the next polling station. No idea if it has happened in modern times but the system is currently set up so that it can happen.

In my mind though the solution is to give more power to the electoral officer and more training to the staff. This bill seems to give more training to the staff with earlier hiring but then turns around and takes investigative powers away from the EO.

If you really want to commit voter fraud under the new rules you could do it. If someone is going through the process of getting a bus, counceling 50 people to commit fraud, making up a list of fake addresses and names for people to memorize, and doind this at multiple stations then they arent going to stop at the inconvenience of having to forge a few documents.

Its unlikely that the above happened anyway but if you want to commit voter fraud it would be pretty east regardless of the rules. Until fraud is a real issue access is more important.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I haven't had a chance to sit down and read the bill.

This is the type of thing to have fear mongering on each side, so for me to make a fair comment I need to do more research, give the bill a thorough read, and think about the issues it proposes to fix and what issues it may create.

That said, if I won't comment on the bill due to lack to time to weigh the issues, why the heck is it being shoved through?


The worst thing happening in Canadian politics today is that we've shifted to the us versus them philosophy. No longer are parties and politicians weighed on their merits, ideas and proposals, if party X proposes something bad rather than improve the proposal they simply say "but party Y is worse".

[GP_Matt]

I don't understand the idea of making it harder to vote out the sitting government. No government in Canada has lasted all that long so if you make a rule that favours the sitting government it will hurt you later.
It seems pretty short sighted.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I haven't had a chance to sit down and read the bill.

This is the type of thing to have fear mongering on each side, so for me to make a fair comment I need to do more research, give the bill a thorough read, and think about the issues it proposes to fix and what issues it may create.

That said, if I won't comment on the bill due to lack to time to weigh the issues, why the heck is it being shoved through?

That's the thing.

Why lie about consulting Elections Canada? Shouldn't that be a big deal?

If the bill is so strong, why not review it/debate it?

If the bill is so strong, why not consult the general public about it's contents?

Answer: Because it's a shifty move by an increasingly shifty government.

I mean, honestly here, the Federal Government openly lied about consulting with Elections Canada regarding new legislation affecting elections.

Shouldn't, y'know, someone be held accountable for that?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

That's the thing.

Why lie about consulting Elections Canada? Shouldn't that be a big deal?

If the bill is so strong, why not review it/debate it?

If the bill is so strong, why not consult the general public about it's contents?

Answer: Because it's a shifty move by an increasingly shifty government.

I mean, honestly here, the Federal Government openly lied about consulting with Elections Canada regarding new legislation affecting elections.

Shouldn't, y'know, someone be held accountable for that?

I think we need to wait until poilerve responds to the accusation they didnt meet.

The elections Canada spokesperson said that Mayrand was not "consulted on the contents of the bill". Poilerve is saying "I did meet with the CEO of Elections Canada some time ago and we had a terrific and a very long meeting, at which I listened carefully to all of his ideas,"

These two statements do not conflict with eachother. Mayrands spokesperson is saying they didnt review the bill, Poilerve is saying they discussed ideas about the bill some time ago.

Both quotes are slimey and reak of politics.

Here is the governments version of the bill, time to read the actual bill and see whats in there.

http://www.democraticreform.gc.ca/en...-elections-act

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I haven't had time to actually read the bill, but if the stuff listed in this article is true it means that as a lifelong PC/reform/conservative voter, it makes me sick to my stomach.

I hope it is just poorly written, but I am not going to hold my breath...

That's pretty much where I'm at. I'm a little embarrassed to be honest. Our city is so progressive, but the rest of the country's perception of us is reinforced when the political part who has us as a bastion does things like this.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by nik-

That's pretty much where I'm at. I'm a little embarrassed to be honest. Our city is so progressive, but the rest of the country's perception of us is reinforced when the political part who has us as a bastion does things like this.

Arguments like this have no real point when there is no other political party even making the pretense of caring what Calgary/Alberta thinks. The other parties, in fact, have been traditionally hostile, so why would we vote for them?

[nik-]

Well they have, that's for sure. I'm not saying there are no reasons that the west supports the Conservatives. I'm an oil sector employee, and I hate the way the rest of the country and political parties look at us as the villain, but I also don't like our slide towards a more American mindset politically.

I don't see protecting the financial lifeblood of this region being in conflict with not doing things like this.

[kirant]

For the curious and interested, the actual bill of the text can be found here:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...&File=24&Col=1

The underlined, if I'm reading properly, are the proposed changes.

[Devils'Advocate]

VERY harsh words coming from the chief elections officer.

Election reform bill an affront to democracy, Marc Mayrand says:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elec...says-1.2527635

"I don't think it reflects a model democracy that Canadians aspire to."

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Arguments like this have no real point when there is no other political party even making the pretense of caring what Calgary/Alberta thinks. The other parties, in fact, have been traditionally hostile, so why would we vote for them?

Chicken or the egg. Political parties have very limited resources; they are not going to spend millions on trying to win ridings that are unwinnable. The Conservatives could, I don't know, taint how we do elections to make us a less democratic nation, and they would still win in a landslide.

And can you give concrete examples of the NDP being "traditionally hostile" to Calgary/Alberta? And is the Liberal "hostility" going back to the NEP?

[Tinordi]

Justin Trudeau has given unqualified enthusiastic support for things like the oil sands, but you know rabble rabble Trudeau doesn't care about Calgary rabble rabble.

Mind numbing partisanship.

[Clarkey]

I don't support targeted voter turnout campaigns by Elections Canada, so if this changes that then good.

[Devils'Advocate]

I support Elections Canada getting as many people out to vote as possible, so if this changes that then bad.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Justin Trudeau has given unqualified enthusiastic support for things like the oil sands, but you know rabble rabble Trudeau doesn't care about Calgary rabble rabble.

Mind numbing partisanship.

Said the pot to the kettle.

And yes, Trudeau says a lot of things. His words are meaningless given his party's history. In time, his actions will be far more important.

DA - If the Liberals and NDP won't put resources into trying to become a viable alternative, then nobody should complain when they don't get votes. (also, the most recent overt example of Liberal Party hostility was the Green Shift).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I support Elections Canada getting as many people out to vote as possible, so if this changes that then bad.

Taking this one lone part of the bill in isolation, I would say the only thing Elections Canada should be doing is promoting when, where and how to vote. Most of the other aspects of "getting as many people out to vote as possible" is also called campaigning, and that is the job of the parties/candidates themselves.

[FlamesAddiction]

Do higher voter turnouts favour the Liberals? I recall during the US election, it was said by some people in the media that higher voter turnouts tend to historically favour the Democrats. I was just wondering if the same concept is true in Canada.

[Devils'Advocate]

1) Without discussing the merits of the "Green Shift", please explain how it is anti-Calgary.
2) The example that the CEO gave in his interview was that Elections Canada help with a program in the schools where students not of age to vote can participate in mock elections where they get to know the process of voting and the importance of voting. I support them 100% getting the next generation interested in politics and wanting to participate in democracy.